These are my thoughts on the various candidates. Note that, in order to try to promote the candidates I think are best suited for the job, I will only support at most nine candidates. The rest of the ones whom I would have supported will receive neutral votes. I shade the background of the table when I've reached my final decision on the candidate and am very unlikely to change my vote. I don't post everything I find on this page to encourage people to do their own research.

28bytes is one of a few users who is impossible not to support. He has excellent communication and diplomatic skills. He is well-trusted and very reasonable. He has had the 'bureaucrat' usergroup for over a year now, and in that time has been an excellent voice of reason in many insane disputes. I think I've said enough already—easy support.

Strong support

Y

28bytes will add an excellent voice of reason and deliberation to the committee, similar to what Newyorkbrad added in the years prior.

AGK has two years of experience on the committee, and his actions were generally reasonable. About the only major blunder he made was on the Malleus arbitration request. Apart from that, his tenure and activity should be good for the committee. His contributions show decent clue and understanding.

Support

Y

AGK has experience and will continue performing the behind-the-scenes work that keeps the committee running.

I completely disagree with the main thrust of his statement. "I think some of the members of ArbCom have lost sight of the concept that the purpose of Wikipedia is to add and maintain content, and that those who discourage the addition of content, whether or not otherwise meeting the guidelines, are not acting in the best interest of Wikipedia. These include both POV-pushers and those who insult other Wikipedians, whether or not the insult is deserved."

While Beeblebrox doesn't tolerate any nonsense and is a straight shooter, his dispute resolution abilities are not great.

Weak oppose

Y

Beeblebrox won't tolerate the nonsense thrown out by a fair number of people at arbitration, but he will really need to keep his abrasive attitude in check while on the arbitration committee. People will not appreciate an uncivil arbitrator, which is the antithesis of what an arbitrator should be.

He's one of the civility types who regularly posts on ANI. While it would be okay if he were civil himself, that isn't the case. This block was also incredibly bad, violating WP:INVOLVED. On the other hand, he does deal with some of the most difficult editors at ANI. However, at this time I do not feel that he is cut out to be an arbitrator.

Like Roger Davies, he's another returning arbitrator. He has experience, and was generally reasonable on ArbCom. Overall, he seems to have a level head on his shoulders, so I can see him having another two terms as an arbitrator.

He starts off by heavily politicizing his candidate statement. In a statement oddly reminiscent of Count Iblis's statement last year, "No-one running for re-election should get your vote", he manages to lump all the editors on ArbCom into one bundle and tar them with the dread "incumbent" brush, a lot like American politicians did. (And yes, I know he's British.) I didn't like it from them, and I don't like it from him.

In the recent Phil Sandifer case, he has been all but out-and-out accusing ArbCom of transphobia.

He states: "The Arbitration Committee's...abuse of powers (including oversight) to suppress criticism of their decisions." Uhmm, diff or history link please? ArbCom has, to my knowledge, never suppressed or removed material critical of them. They only told Phil Sandifer to stop harassing and outing Cla68 on his blog.

He states: "The Arbitration Committee'...inability to acknowledge gross errors." To what "gross errors" does he refer? This reads like pure attack rhetoric without a source. I'd ask a question, except that no matter what answer he gives, my vote will remain in strong opposition to him.

Floquenbeam is a bit of a maverick. He is willing to go against the flow when it matters, understands the need to tone down the drama and assumptions of bad faith at ANI, and actually thinks about the person behind the account. I've seen him close down unhelpful ANI threads without blocking or sanctioning someone, work with editors with promotional usernames at UAA, and block unhelpful trolls and sockpuppets at SPI. In this post, he shows a lot of character. Additionally, I admire him for finally standing up to the mindless cut and paste questionnaires being asked by several people. Ask meaningful and relevant questions, people.

Floquenbeam is one of the best. Easy support for him.

Strong support

Y

Floquenbeam will add a thoughtful, caring mind to the arbitration committee. He thinks about others, even those who are about to be banned. He clearly doesn't subscribe to the "banninated!" mindset, something that is of great importance in an arbitrator. Hopefully, he can keep the committee's actions fair and reasonable.

Gamaliel seems to be generally unobtrusive, although he occasionally shows up to comment on ANI. I have not seen him causing drama there, so it doesn't appear to be much of an issue. He has been here for a very long time, and focuses a lot on content. He seems to be a reasonable editor.

Gamaliel was ruled down to neutral due to the limitation on the number of seats.

GorillaWarfare has been a long-term OTRS responder. She also does a large quantity of nitty-gritty administrative work. While I am concerned about her lack of audited content, I have seen enough maintenance work to justify supporting anyway. Apart from that, she seems to have reasonable dispute resolution skills, a trait in high demand on ArbCom. She is almost always calm, and a good voice of reason. While not as good as some of the other candidates running (Floquenbeam, 28bytes, or Roger Davies), she has many of the qualities I look for in an arbitrator.

Support

Y

GorillaWarfare will take her extensive OTRS experience to ArbCom, along with a calm demeanor.

Right now, GregJackP has a number of strikes against him—his ArbCom restrictions and indefinite block for legal threats were lifted in only 2012. However, he also has some positives. He regularly contributes content, and whatever issues he had in the past do not seem to have recurred. I like his statement of "I believe that ArbCom members and admins are responsible to the community, and that except in very rare circumstances, be prepared to explain their actions." I also like his objective view on the Phil Sandifer motions. That said, I'm a little too leery of the past issues to support him this time. Next year, assuming all goes well, I will probably support.

Guerillero is a good ArbCom clerk and has been on AUSC, so he knows the ropes. His intended reforms look good, and he gives concrete examples rather than the nebulous "change" that some of the other users whom I opposed presented. He is sensible and fair. I think I can support him, as I did last election.

Ruled down to neutral because he will very likely be inactive for a large portion of his term.

Kevin has done a fair bit of content creation, but his statement reads like he intends on being one of the civility cops. Perhaps unfortunately, perhaps not, but with the wealth of other great candidates available, I have to hold this against him. Additionally, I have seen little to none of him on various pages where I could asses his dispute resolution or administration capabilities. All in all, I have to oppose this candidacy.

Kraxler is predominantly a content creator and a non-admin, and it would be excellent to have his viewpoint on the arbitration committee. He has a sensible head on his shoulders, and his long-term Wikipedia experience will help him on the committee. I have never seen him cause drama, so I believe he will make an excellent candidate.

He's been an admin for a year longer than last time he ran, and the debacle from last time has not been repeated to my knowledge. He's been active in both content and administration, and he has experience on the ArbCom clerk team. He's briefly been a functionary (appointed to the oversight team at the same time I was appointed to the checkuser team at the end of August) which will help him in ArbCom non-public work.

Overall, he's a decent person who I wouldn't mind being an arbitrator.

I still don't like his stance on BLP: "They never did desysop Scott Macdonald, despite the fact that he had wheel-warred and blocked another administrator during the course of his wheel-warring. As I said in my statement, I believe that Arbcom tends to miss the point of everything brought before it." I also don't like that his candidate statement basically states he is running a reactionary candidacy. He writes: "I don't tolerate misbehaviour, no matter how glorious of a copywriter someone may be." That statement appears to mean that he will be rather harsh as an arbitrator, something we probably don't need.

On the other hand, I was very impressed with his willingness to stand up to the WMF. Good admin, but probably not a good arb.

LFaraone is another of the users who joined the checkuser team together with me in September 2013. He has since been fairly active there, and his work at SPI has been good. It'll be good to have another active checkuser on ArbCom, and his long-term OTRS work will prove helpful, particularly in dispute resolution. An excellent candidate.

Support

Y

LFaraone will be an active checkuser and OTRS volunteer at the arbitration committee. He will bring his experience in both those roles.

I've had plenty of good experience with NativeForeigner as a fellow SPI clerk and now as a checkuser. He has some content work under his belt, and has coordinated the military history wikiproject, as he mentions in his nomination statement. He is reasonable and active, and it will be good to have another highly active and competent checkuser on ArbCom.

Support

Y

NativeForeigner will bring his good checkuser and content experience to arbcom.

RegentsPark is a good content editor and seems to have good dispute resolution skills. He takes a hard-line stance on paid editing, believing that all forms should be banned and any users engaging in paid editing should be banned as well. On the other hand, he also tends to be a voice of leniency when sanctions are being called for—another good trait for someone on ArbCom to have. He is quite calm and deliberative, qualities that are essential for a good arbitrator.

As with the last time, he is ruled down to neutral due to a lack of available seats.

He's still running on the same civility platform as last time. In the last election, I asked him a question on his views on civility enforcement. The reply then was not overly encouraging or discouraging. However, unlike some in the civility enforcement crowd, Richwales is a straight shooter and, as far as I can tell, completely up-front and honest with his beliefs, rather than trying to be politically correct. Bonus points for that.

He's been here a long time. He has content to his name, and has plenty of experience. Secret really seems to have his heart in the right place, which matters greatly in my decision-making process. My sole concern is that he might explode again under the pressure.

Secret was ruled down to neutral due to the number of good candidates running and an insufficient number of seats.

Overall, Seraphimblade seems to be an ANI, village pump, and Jimbo talk admin. He doesn't claim much of anything in the way of content created, although he identifies as deletionist. I can't really tell much else about him.

Neutral

Y

Seraphimblade will bring decent dispute resolution experience from his AFD closures to the new arbitration committee.

I don't think that The Devil's Advocate would be good for ArbCom. He is very commonly surrounded by controversy and drama, and seems to help generate it rather than calm it down. I've seen no indication of dispute resolution capabilities or strong audited content creation. The "acts like an admin" userbox is also a major turn-off.